[Gambas-user] Reduced activity

[Benoît Minisini]

Le 01/12/2021 à 23:19, Jussi Lahtinen a écrit :
> Okey dokey, since professionalism is not a priority of Benoit in this list.
> In short, Benoit got almost all (if not all) wrong.
> 
>     The more mutations (technically it's not really mutations, but let's
>     ignore that fact), the less dangerous a RNA virus become.
> 
> 
> Firstly,
> technically and for all purposes they are mutations. IE alterations of 
> nucleotide sequence <-- that is the definition of mutation! Here you can 
> see the genomes and how they have changed:
> https://genome.ucsc.edu/covid19.html <https://genome.ucsc.edu/covid19.html>

According to the specialists, RNA viruses exchange pieces of their RNA 
far more than they mutate. So it's not mutations, but one call them 
mutation to simplify.

> 
> Secondly,
> while most mutations do nothing, some of them are harmful and some are 
> beneficial for the virus. Harmful mutations make the virus less able to 
> survive and reproduce, and thus they die off. Beneficial mutations do 
> the opposite and thus they make the virus more common. More able to 
> infect its host.
> Before the key mutations SARS-CoV-2 used to be a harmless virus 
> infecting only bats. The virus doesn't care what it causes to its host. 
> It cannot do that. It just replicates. If we look at the issue in a more 
> proper evolutionary scale, then the virus might in fact settle with 
> mutations, which are less harmful to us. But on a scale of a few years, 
> the virus can go in either direction more or less harmful as we have 
> seen (see SARS, MERS, etc, etc previous coronavirus epidemias).
> That is directly from very basic evolution theory. Benoit, are you 
> creationist also?

Again, this is the nice theory. In practical, RNA viruses become less 
dangerous the more they mutate. It does not mean that punctually a 
variant cannot become more dangerous. But this is a relative danger, 
because the behaviour of a virus is ecosystem-dependant. The same virus 
in Africa will behave completely differently than in Europe.

The real problem with COVID is that it comes from and mutate mostly 
inside huge concentrations of specific animals (bats, wild marmot, mink 
breeding) before returning back to humans.

In Europe, the second COVID epidemic comes from French mink breeding. 
They were destroyed, but too late. I'm not sure that European countries 
will thank us for that...

To give some good news, we have a great specialist of molecular biology 
in France, Pr. Jacques Fantini, that showed that probably we will not 
have a variant that will replace the Delta variant (that is one of the 
less letal variant of Covid).

He modelized the form of the different Covid variants in 3D and deduced 
from that form how fast the Covid variant will stick to the cell it 
wants to hijack (because of the electric attraction between positive and 
negative parts of the virus and the cell).

He found that the Delta variant is by far the fastest variant. But more, 
he found too that if another variant is faster, he will stick too much 
to the cell, and won't be able to infect it.

So he deduced that probably no other variant will be able to spread 
against the Delta.

He may be wrong, but if he is right, it's a good news, as the Delta is 
not very letal.

> 
> 
>     By preventing the virus to live its life, i.e. mutating, you just make
>     the epidemic longer.
> 
> 
> Of course not, just like letting fishes live their life doesn't make 
> them die off. That is not how mutations work in evolution.

I don't see any argument here.

A virus is not an object. It's a living thing. But its life works 
differently than usual live beings. We can modelize it by several 
superimposed cycles:

1) The first cycle is the mean mutation frequency. This is apparently 
easy to compute.

2) The second cycle is the length of the cycle of life of a variant. For 
Covid, an israelian mathematician noticed it's about 70 days whatever 
the variant. This is impossible to guess, it's too complex, because it 
depends on how a new variant replaces an old one.

3) The third cycle is the most global one, the one that interests us: 
when the epidemic is over, i.e. when the virus adapted to its target by 
not making too many people sick while being able to continue to replicate.

When you compare all the countries that all took completly different 
social and sanitary decisions, you see no pattern, no correlation 
between the variant big cycles and the social/sanitary decisions.

At least in France, there is an exception, as a great epidemiologist 
showed that confinement had a negative impact.

Which may imply that preventing the virus to spread -generally- is not a 
good idea, directly or indirectly.

But of course, preventing the virus to reach people at risk (mostly old 
people in nursing home) is a good idea, and we see that in the 2021 
French statistics (maybe the only good decision of our government, 
making tests mandatory before entering a retirement home, where 50% of 
the covid deaths occur).

> 
>     People vaccinated by these mARN-based injections get a random number of
>     their cells hijacked to produce part of the famous "spike" protein of
>     the virus, so that our immune system is trained to recognize it.
> 
> 
> And this differs from the other vaccines how?
> If by random you mean no one has counted them, then yes, it's random. 
> Otherwise the dose is quite well determined to be between acceptable limits.
> Traditional vaccines use the spike proteins or weakened viruses to 
> deliver the training to the immune system. It is just as "random".

AFAIK Chinese vaccine uses de-activated virus, so the entire virus is 
used to train the immune system, not just the spike protein.

Moreover, we now know that the spike protein can be dangerous, and that 
it was not a good idea to hijack the cells to make them produce that 
specific protein. But this is another problem.

> 
>     By indirectly targetting only a small part of the virus, these
>     injections
>     actually lead to the same problematic mutations than the mutations
>     occurring in non-vaccinated people.
> 
> 
> Now the mutations are problematic..?
> Usually not all the proteins are used, because some of them are really 
> poor antibody targets and thus they would be there only to cause 
> side-effects.
> 
>     This is the reason why these injections do not work anymore.
> 
> 
> This is of course untrue. The initial mRNA vaccine works less well 
> against the new mutations, but it still works.
> Scientific proof: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891 
> <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2108891>
> 
> The real problem is that, because the vaccine is so new, we don't yet 
> know the optimal vaccination regime and amount of needed doses.
> Compare this example to the tetanus vaccine. First *three* of them are 
> given within a*one year*, after that first booster after a few years and 
> then every ten years.
> And if you have an example puncture wound from a dirty object, you will 
> get an additional booster on top of that.
> 
> 
>     And by vaccinated people too, as the ARNm injections do not prevent
>     virus spread.
> 
> 
> The vaccine *does* prevent the virus spreading. But the studies are very 
> new and still at the preprint. Example here:
> https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260 
> <https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.28.21264260>

In England, and in France (but it's not yet official), the proportions 
of vaccinated people with covid in the hospital is the same than the 
proportion of vaccinated people in the population.

That means that the experimental injections do not prevent virus spreading.

It does not mean that they cannot work in other countries, because 
different countries have different variants, and the same virus behave 
differently when the eco-system changes.

If you go to the John Hopkins University's Covid web site, that compares 
vaccination rate, number of cases (usually a useless stat) and number of 
deaths, you will see that the effect of vaccination is completly random 
between countries.

In some countries, the vaccination seems to have a positive effect (less 
cases, less deaths).

In England, the vaccination seems to make a huge number of Covid 
contanimation, but less deaths.

In Germany, the vaccination makes more cases and more deaths. It's worse 
in Greece.

In Australia, the vaccination starts making less cases and less deaths, 
but we must wait to see.

So there is no pattern, no correlation between the vaccination and what 
happens in reality.

As for the effect of vaccination of people against Covid death with the 
Delta variant (almost 100% of contamination in France), the official 
French stats are: no effect at all. No difference between vaccinated 
people and non-vaccinated people.

> 
> 
>     So the real number is actually 3.5%: of course a number does not show
>     the actual work of the nurses and doctors during the epidemic pic, but
>     for sure the reality was not the "hospital completely overwhelmed by a
>     virus similar to Ebola" that the media sold us.
> 
> 
> It seems you have picked some old statistics (from Facebook or real 
> ones?) and decided that is the worst they have seen.

This is an official report of the French State published 2 or 3 weeks 
ago. You have statistics by region too, and of course there are 
differences - we have many eco-systems in France, so the Covid should 
actually be always studied region by region.

> And now they are sending patients to Germany, because they are... ...not 
> full..? What is the idea here? What are you suggesting?

Sending some patients to Germany punctually means nothing. The hospital 
overwhelming is completly manufactured by political decisions that way:

1) The government closed thousands of hospital beds during the pandemic 
last year and this year. As if the government made everything to be sure 
that the public hospital will not be able to handle the sick people, 
whatever the illness.

2) They have fired thousands of non-injected nurses and doctors. Many 
essential services had to stop. We had last week the first people who 
died because of that. Today, you have in hospital tons of vaccinated 
employees that caught the Covid and that are force to go to work (you 
are vaccinated, so you must go to work, don't care if you have the 
Covid!), and tons of fired unvaccinated employees available that do not 
have the Covid and that could work. I think that even Franz Kafka could 
not have imagined such a raving situation.

3) There are a lot of hospital bed available in private hospital in 
France. The government forbid the public hospital to use them.

> 
> 
>     Another statistic is the number of people sicked: The usual yearly flu
>     epidemic, at his highest, makes (in France) 600 people sick by week for
>     100 000 people.
> 
>     The Covid "epidemic" at his highest in 2020, made 140 people sick by
>     week for 100 000 people.
> 
> 
> No.
> The Population of France is 67390000. *Daily* number of *confirmed* 
> COVID cases was over 50 000 (the real number is higher!!!).
> (50 000 * 7) / 67390000 = 0.005193648909334 cases per person, which is 
> ~*519 cases per 100 000 people*.
> https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/france 
> <https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/france>
> 
> But let's pretend your numbers are correct.

I gave you the official and publicly available statistics of the French 
Health State department, build by the doctors seing sick patients. So 
good luck to pretend they are wrong.

A "COVID case" is just a positive test, it does not really means 
anything: there are many false positive and false negative. I think it 
would be meaningful only if the same rate of the population were tested 
with the same regularity. We are far from that.

The statistics I use are about people actually really sick. It is a 
reliable statistic, and it's what has always been used until Covid to 
analyze the epidemics.


> Average death rate by influenza is around 2 per 100 000, death rate for 
> COVID is around a bit over 200 per 100 000.
> https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2514 
> <https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2514>
> Similarly COVID has much greater injury and hospitalization rate. Thus 
> they aren't quite the same.

The greater injury and hospitalization rate of COVID is just because the 
government forbid doctors to treat the patients.

The COVID 19 starts spreading (at least in Italy and in France) in 2018, 
maybe before. But nobody noticed it. Why? Because the doctors received 
their sick patients, saw an unusual breathing disease, give them the 
usual drugs in that case (Azythromicin for example, Zinc, and other 
drugs depending on the patients), and all patients recovered, none went 
to the hospital.

If the government had let doctors do their job, the hospitalization rate 
of COVID would have been very low.

We have a few examples of doctors in France that had, at the very early 
beginning of the epidemic, many Covid patient and that cure all of them 
with the usual drugs used in breathing disease. These doctors usually 
were very happy. Some of them publicly express their happiness: "hey, 
this disease can be cured mostly easily, my patients recovered quickly, 
none of my patients went to the hospital!". Bad luck, they were 
immediately threatened by the officials, and had to shut up or they 
would lose their licence (one example: Dr Jean-Jacques Erbstein). 
Nowadays, all the drugs that are suspected to have a positive effect 
against the Covid, at least in France, are forbidden in one way or another.

> 
>     We see the same pattern when examining the global mortality: the Covid
>     has no significant effect on the mortality in 2020. In other words, it
>     killed very old people with problems that would have died otherwise
>     from
>     something else.
> 
> 
> No, excess mortality raised globally a lot. By the beginning of 2020 
> corona had not yet spread much, but after it peaked, the deaths peaked.
> https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid 
> <https://ourworldindata.org/excess-mortality-covid>

I'm not entirely convinced by how 'ourworldindata.org' computes excess 
mortality.

What I can tell is that you must never compare mortality between 
different years in absolute numbers. You have to normalize the data 
first, by age structure. Reading their explanation, they normalize the 
data in some way, but I'm not sure that they are normalizing against the 
age structure.

Again I can talk only for France, with the official State death 
statistics. When you normalize the data by age structure, the mortality 
excess almost disappear. In practice, there is a mortality excess for 
age > 65, and a mortality deficit for age < 65 between 2020 and the five 
previous years (2019 being a year with very low mortality). So, in 
France, the impact of Covid 19 on mortality exists, but it's not so 
important.

Moreover, you can take the Rivotril scandal into account: a drug bought 
by UE for a lot of money last year, and freely distributed by the French 
government in retirement home that killed thousands of old people having 
the Covid. They called that "euthanasia". Technically for me it's 
"murders". Anyway, that Rivotril may had an impact of the mortality too 
in 2020.

> 
>     So, no, non-vaccinated people have absolutely no effect on what happens
>     in the hospital.
> 
> 
> Non-vaccinated people are the majority of the patients.
> Example:
> https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039 
> <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2786039>
> https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2306 
> <https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2306>
> Etc. These numbers seem to be very similar around the world.
> 
> 
>     Nowadays, as the mRNA-based injections do not work anymore, the
>     hospital
>     is full of vaccinated people getting the Covid. 
> 
> 
> Wrong and wrong, as shown already.

This is not the numbers we have in England and in France. About the same 
rate of vaccinated people in hospital for Covid that the rate of 
vaccinated people in the entire population. Which should be logical in 
countries where the Delta variant is almost 100% of the infections.

> 
> 
>     Again, I am not against vaccine -in general and theoretically -, and I
>     agree with your arguments in that case, but I'm against these
>     injections
>     -specifically and practically-.
> 
>     I have heard that the Chinese vaccine is a traditional vaccine. No
>     problem with that. It's just forbidden in the western world. Bad luck,
>     it's political again.
> 
> 
> Please tell me, what is the significant difference between mRNA covid 
> vaccine and these "traditional" vaccines?

The Chinese vaccine is made the old way, with deactivated viruses. It's 
a well known technology, not an injection of an experimental technology 
that hijack your cells to produce a probably toxic protein. The Chinese 
vaccine seems to provide a lower protection than the mARN injection 
against the initial variant, but it seems to provide about the same 
protection against all the variants. Anyway, that's not very important 
for us, as the Chinese vaccine is forbidden in Europe.

> Benoit, I wonder how well you could engineer a compiler without knowing 
> how to program. It's the same here.
> You have no education in this field, yet you claim to know better than 
> others who do have the education.
> 

No, there is a difference between the two situations: it's the human people.

I don't see why I should inject in my body a mostly non working 
experimental product made by one of the most corrupted company in the 
world, that apparently does not master its industrial process, as the 
side effects of these injections in a few monthgs is greater that the 
total number of side effects of all other vaccines in tens of years - 
which is not a surprise as a vaccine must normally be tested 10 years 
before being allowed to be used massively.

Because of the on-going totalitarian vaccination process, no-one in the 
world can avoid that question for itself, whatever the level of 
education or knowledge about the technical aspect of mRNA injections he has.

Hopefully, at least in France, we still have scientists and doctors that 
share their knowledge without being paid by Big Pharma, we have many 
public statistics that overlap, preventing many falsifications (the 
French government tried a few times, but he was caught because of the 
incoherence of its falsifications), we have good statisticians that 
share their analyze of these stats publicly, we have many doctors that 
share their daily experience with patients, others that tells what 
actually happens in the hospital from the inside, and so on.

This allows us to have a picture of the story that better matches the 
reality. Alas it does not make the drugs available.

Regards,

-- 
Benoît Minisini